User talk:Slywriter

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Article for deletion - Cadet Wing Director of Operations

Hi Slywriter! You helped me get an article published last year and I was wondering if you could take a look at the one I have recently submitted for review to see if it is eligible or how it can be made eligible. I hope you're well. Thanks, Venus.

Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini

Hi, I read the warning you added to the entry Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini and I think it is nonsense, because the entry Maurizio Merluzzo, like other voices, has this reference... (Of course I am referring to the question of the IMDb profile) Nonna Angelina (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for creation of Karnal Municipal Corporation

Reply to your AFC comment = This cannot be incorporated/merged into a city or district article, because this article is for the Municipal Government Organization of Karnal which officially is Karnal Municipal Corporation just like other municipal corporations in Haryana and India. For example Panipat Municipal Corporation. You are requested to allow to create this page. Keshavv1234 (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Keshavv1234 Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Civic_Administration. You can create a section named Karnal#Civic_Administration and add relevant information there. Venkat TL (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Shiji Group

Draft:Shiji

Hi Slywriter, Thanks very much for your comments on the Shiji page I am suffering over. I am continuing to search for more references, and chopping unnecessary information per your suggestions. So you know, I used as a template another Wikipedia page or two in order to make this one complete. But, I want to get the process down for future pages too, so. TYVM for your help. Philbutler (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Philbutler, instead of dozens of routine non-notable references, focus on finding WP:THREE good independent references that discuss the subject in-depth. If you can't find three then its likely not a subject that merits inclusion in wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks very much. I have and am looking. The problem is systemic. The draft you see is cut back from what was an almost exact clone (template) of one or more major hotel brands on Wikipedia. I don't want to waste your time, but those brands are far older, but still lack the same criteria Wiki experts are telling me I should find. The problem is that this company is a lot newer (digitally) in English. Even in Chinese, by comparison, Shiji just came onto the scene. Another problem is, these technology companies are simply boring for journalists. I know, they have bored me in about 50,000 tech articles I've written about them. It is no so pertinent, but I was one of the early evangelists/analysts of Wikipedia, and my interview with Jimbo (who is not boring) led me to where I am typing right now. This is supposed to be the repository of the knowledge of humanity, or in his exact words, “the sum of all human knowledge available to every person in the world.”

I am about ready to give up on this one and do some reverse media engineering (find the inclusion criteria, then write the page) to place other subjects in Wikipedia. I only did this one because I am a travel writer who thought it strange Wikipedia did not have a company with this reach within the encyclopedia. Sorry. There are tens of thousands of Wikipedia entries that do not exactly meet these stringent criteria. This company employs an army. It serves almost every hotel in Asia, and half the hotels in the west. The President of the United States (Trump) sanctioned the company in a move that was unprecedented. But, ironically, I was advised to remove that as unnecessary info. If all Wikipedia editors followed such advice, Wikipedia would be a cookbook. Read the page for Cristiano Ronaldo and see if that contributor did a "play by play" for the page. This is what I was chastised for. Too much color and superfluous info.

As for Wikipedia articles with similar referencing, it took me exactly 10 seconds to isolate Palo Alto Networks, a newer company that does not employ an army. The first reference in this article seems right, since it is via Fox News. But, in reality it is a regurgitation from PC Mag, which in turn uses the Palo Alto Networks texts, which were PR campaigned (syndicated) to Enterprenuer. The second reference is Palo Alto Networks, the third (you guessed it) Palo Alto Networks, and the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth references are either Palo Alto Networks, press releases, scant mentions, or Tweets. I won't bore you by going on, and on, and on. The Palo Alto Networks page suffers from the exact same "problems" my Shiji page does, only worse. With a week and a new keyboard?? Well. All I am asking for is some help here. My intentions are only to make Wikipedia a tad more complete. But wrestling over the pointedly obvious for hours on end is not in my retirement package.

Please, help me. Meanwhile, I am still looking for the novel about the Chinese technology company that was boring. Philbutler (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Eisenberg, Nadezhda Aleksandrovna

Hey! Comment: Need better sourcing. 2nd source does not appear useable. First source looks good (notwithstanding its overly agressive ads) Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC) There are no sources , only that one. Also, same source is provided in russian version of this text. I can remove it, but I can't replace it, as there are no similar sources .

Teahouse Host

Dear Slywriter,

Thank you for volunteering as a Host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users to get started here at Wikipedia, and aiding more experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

• Useful scripts you can install to make responding easier,
• templates to use and, of course:
• the question forum itself.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.

Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

ElectReon Wireless comment

Slywriter In regards to your comment "Editor mentioned at ANI that high costs are addressed but they are not as no context is provided and editor expects reader to go to the source for more information. (memorializing concerns I have from AFCHD and ANI for future reviewer)"

I have updated under "Researchers" already the the sentences which addresses this claim. It is inaccurate to state that I "expect reader to go to source for more information." Please review the text under "Researchers" as it provides the relative cost of the technologies, showing Electreon's is the highest according to the Swedish Transport Admin research report. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC))

Jacobariel91, Please stop posting comments in multiple places, its inefficient. The ANI thread is moot at this point unless you wish to pursue the behavioral complaint, no one will discuss content further there.

To the substance, I see nothing showing anything in the draft article like you claim above. Its just a rambling of costs and the CEOs hope of a lower price but zero context exists and one is left wondering what else is omitted from the sources.Slywriter (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter Apologies, I will keep the conversation limited to here. Your comment says: "Editor mentioned at ANI that high costs are addressed but they are not as no context is provided and editor expects reader to go to the source for more information."

This is not true, and I ask you modify this statement.

This sentence in the draft text addresses high costs relative to other assessed technologies - no need for any reader to sift through the source:

"...its February 2021 interim report estimated Electreon's infrastructure cost, per kilometer both ways (two lanes) at mass production, at 19.5 million SEK (about 2.3 million USD at the time of publishing), compared with 12.4, 11.5, and 9.4 million SEK of the other road technologies [in the report]."

Further, under "Electreon's" cost estimates, the language indicates the projected cost assessments are continuously increasing and will therefore be much higher than current estimates. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC))

Jacobariel91, I see the line now but I don't see how you are getting it from the source. Best I can tell the only mention of ElectReon is a passing mention in a footnote to a diagram and the report is about the general technology, not the company. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are the relevant policies that say we can not make assumptions based on the source. Slywriter (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Jacobariel91, you seem very knowledgeable in this area and well you should be after studying and researching the article, however, our reader may not be extremely knowledgeable in these subjects and Wikipedia is not an academic encyclopedia otherwise we would never just allow anyone to edit but only those providing academic credentials. Because of Wikipedia's libre mission, articles need to be written with this in mind. One of the issues that stands out to me in this draft is the change from euro to usd at varying points. The common reader would need to have a conversion table in front of them to even remotely understand what you are saying and even then may not fully understand. It is important not to just repeat what the sources say but to summarize what the sources say in a way that the common reader can understand. There may be a great article written in this but its very difficult to follow and therefore difficult to verify the information provided. We should be able to take your summary, not assumptions, and go to the source and be able to match up the relevant facts information that supposedly makes this company notable. --ARoseWolf 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter In page 59 of the Trafikverket (Swedish Transport Admin report), there is a table with the 4 assessed technologies. Electreon's technology is the in-road inductive charging, this the 4th technology in the table, where the cost is given. The report is in Swedish and I coordinated with a translator, as well as online translation tools, to verify this information. There is also a summary report on the Trafikverket cost table that can be found here (in English): https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Electreon#cite_note-trafikverket-2021-02-01-4

ARoseWolf Some sources are in different languages, and I have provided adequate summary of the key points to support the article's claim. I have also indicated changes in currency (i.e. SEK and USD vs, Euro) at points which are relevant. I can make the same edits to show the conversion between km and miles, where its noted. I have also reviewed the text of the article with non-EV enthusiasts to confirm adequate understanding, this has all been taken into account in the language drafting. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC))

Please let me know, if there are further edits I can make to support adequate summary and explanation - happy to make further necessary changes.

Jacobariel91,Swedish Transport Administration electric road program is the article on wiki that the chart was borrowed from for that website. I've left a source assessment on the talk page of the article. Another reviewer may see it differently, but as it stands I can not approve the article for main space. Please note, a review may take awhile as the queue is extensive. You are free to work on the article while review is pending or just sit tight. Slywriter (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Jacobariel91, knew i was having too good a run of properly pinging. anyway, ignore this, relevant content above Slywriter (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter The chart on that article is sourced from the Trafikverket report - this report is the original source for all the related costs on these technologies. I've pointed you to table on page 59 and explained the translation and understanding of the electric road cost technologies, relative to each other. If you review the Trafikverket site on the report, it also underscored the four companies addressed in a clear video. Electreon is the inductive road technology (the fourth listed technology) in the chart on page 59 of the report. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kzb-VlZa-w, starts at 2:18).

Your original comment claimed: "Editor mentioned at ANI that high costs are addressed but they are not as no context is provided and editor expects reader to go to the source for more information." I have provided you with sufficient details and explanations proving otherwise. Please, I kindly ask you do not divert attention from this point and the fact that I have addressed it.

I also ask that you elaborate as to why the article can not be approved for main space at the moment - we have established non-promotional language and notability of sources (I do not want to refer you back to the recent thread with the other editors going through each of these claims extensively), and I have addressed your original comment as well above that I "expect [the] reader to go to the source for more information" as a point which is completely inaccurate (in order to present an accurate status of the draft article to any future reviewers, this comment needs to be modified).

Jacobariel91, I laid on the talk page my concern with each source. And while you have shown the cost to be mentioned, it lacks any context and is useless to a reader unless they load up the source. And as far as I am concerned, the article remains a promotional piece unfit for main space. ANI established nothing beyond "Reject should be reversed", so there is no extensive review by other editors to look at. You can continue to insist your page be accepted as is, but absent meaningful change, it will not be accepted by me. When another reviewer gets to the article they may see it differently.Slywriter (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter Your original comment was that I did not explain the high costs of the company relative to other technologies. I provided the sentence that I did. You then said, it is not clear from the source, I provided explanation that I did and how I did. it lacks any context and is useless to a reader unless they load up the source.

ARoseWolf said above "It is important not to just repeat what the sources say but to summarize what the sources say in a way that the common reader can understand....We should be able to take your summary, not assumptions, and go to the source and be able to match up the relevant facts."

That's entirely the purpose of the write up here - an article should summarize what the sources say. You're saying that my summary is not adequate - please, how would you summarize the sources? How would you summarize the sources so that the users don't need to go to the source? You need to make up your mind and not contradict other editors. There needs to be a consistent standard on the review of draft articles.

"And as far as I am concerned, the article remains a promotional piece unfit for main space" - please provide examples of how this article is a promotional piece? I have continuously asked for this feedback from editors, but none are able to provide adequate examples of such. This goes back to my prior comment that editors need to be fair arbiters of fact vs. promotion. There is no promotional language here, it is al fact son the company's history, technology, and current projects. You need to be able to apply a fair standard of review, otherwise you are detracting from the value of Wikipedia. Please, provide examples of promotional language in the piece. If you have none, that's fine, but then don't call it a promotional piece for convenience sake because you have no other critiques. (Jacobariel91 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC))

Suade Labs

Hi Slywriter,

Thank you for your feedback on the Suade Labs draft. I have made some changes to the draft. Could you please take a look and let me know if it has improved?

Thank you MaxD231291 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Suade_Labs MaxD231291 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

MaxD231291, I've left a quick assessment of the sources on the talk page of the draft.Slywriter (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Kris Tomasson

Hi Slywriter, could you explain a little bit more why the article over this American Designer was declined? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mencke (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Max Mencke, none of the articles are in depth coverage of the subject. Being mentioned in articles is not enough to establish notabilty. Please review WP:N and WP:BIO for the requirements. If you can't find WP:THREE independent relIable sources that discuss the subject, there is little chance of an article being accepted. Slywriter (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Review for Draft:Sherelle

Hi there!

I saw that you left a review & rejection on Draft:Sherelle on the grounds of WP:NOTABILITY. I've included in citations for the article a feature story on the artist from The Guardian [1], a profile from DJMag [2], and profile (a cover story) from Attitude (magazine) [3]. I've also cited multiple reviews of her work from Pitchfork (website) [4] and AllMusic [5], and specific coverage about her and the labels she's worked on, including a profile on her work with Beautiful [6]. These citations do show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to my view. I've also explicitly outlined the reasons she is notable in the article lead: her advocacy work and her work in music.

Do you have recommendations for how to make this more explicit or improve the use of citations? Thank in advance, and thank you for the review! SiliconRed (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

SiliconRed, AllMusic isn't a source, Guardian is an interview and the rest of the sources appear to be interviews or press releases. The subject does not appear to meet any of the guidelines in WP:NMUSIC nor qualify under WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The easiest way to meet these standards is find WP:THREE independent secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth and are not an interview, press release or otherwise connected to the subject. Slywriter (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article (though it's labelled as an interview for whatever reason), DJMag story, and Attitude stories are all features, not interviews or press releases -- not clear to me that you've read them? They're articles which explicitly cover the subject -- representing three, strong, secondary RS. I'd say this person qualifies under WP:BIO: Notability is demonstrated through her music contributions but also through her activism and industry work, and press coverage covers this thoroughly. I've used some press releases as minor citations to get a better handle on dates and timelines for her work, and reviews to compile a critical reaction. I'll look into more cites, but generally I'd argue the foundation for WP:NOTABILITY is pretty clear. SiliconRed (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Added in an couple more cites: A feature on Sherelle from Timeout [7] and a feature on Sherelle from Mixmag [8]. SiliconRed (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Siliconred,Took another look and one of the biggest problems is that everything is an interview except Pitchfork (one other review with dozens of DJs is also independent but so short that it's a passing mention). Interviews are generally considered WP:ABOUTSELF, so they can't be used to support a line like "She is also known for her advocacy for black and LGBT musicians through her label, Beautiful" as no one independent of her is actually saying she is am activist. So doesn't meet the known for activism outside her field. They also generally do not contribute to notability, though admittedly getting the cover for an interview has some weight.

Subject is on the cusp of notability and this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If one or two additional articles can be found that are clearly independent of the subject, good chance of approval.Slywriter (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep adding citations and make sure support is reflected properly, then resubmit. Thanks for the commentary! SiliconRed (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, I've just resubmitted the article at Draft:Sherelle. I've added 6 additional citations: Features from Timeout [9], Mixmag [10], and Resident Advisor [11], a feature specifically on her style and use of genre from Mixmag [12], a news story from Mixmag [13], and reference to her winning British DJ of the year from DJ Mag [14]. I've also updated the wording according to your suggestions and added more content to the article. I recognize that several cites here include interviews, but they're all significant, written into feature articles ABOUT the artist, not just in-line interviews with her. There's a clear difference there, I'd encourage you to look closely at the contents of these cites. The suggestion of WP:TOOSOON might hold some ground because the artist isn't prolific in terms of published releases, but the sheer volume of feature stories about her and coverage of her work as a DJ would suggest that there is plenty of interest beyond just her published discography -- this is made clear in the bio I've written. For what it's worth, I disagree with the suggestion that any article that even uses an interview falls into the bucket of WP:ABOUTSELF: None of the cites I've used are from self-published [or] questionable sources. (and if you feel some are, please let me know which). Thanks! SiliconRed (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Learning a bit here myself. WP:Interviews is an interesting essay which argues that a multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability and if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline. To my reading the feature stories I'm using as citations would lean more into this category, none of them are softball, all of them come from significant and known WP:RS. I can't find specific guidance on "feature stories" but I assume this essay can help guide that thought process. To this end there's not much ambiguity to me that the subject of this article would qualify with WP:MUSICBIO under its first clause: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Appreciate any input you have as well. SiliconRed (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

SiliconRed, I'll leave it for another reviewer as I do not see the interviews as meeting secondary independent reliable sourcing.

They are 95% the subject's own words and seek to promote the subject.

WP:Interviews is an essay, so it's primarily one or more editor's opinions on interviews, rather than reflective of community consensus.Slywriter (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I know it's an essay, but essays do generally provide good guidance. Also, few to none of the articles are 95% of the subject's words... Did you look at the articles? Mixmag [15], Timeout [16], DJMag [17], Guardian [18], Attitude [19] are all substantial articles, 100% prose, solely about the subject. How are these not considered WP:THREE? SiliconRed (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Siliconred, see all the quotation marks in MixMag and Guardian? Those are interviews, telling her story in her words. Same with Timeout. DJMag is the only one that meets significant coverage, as it at least appears the writer has done their own reportingSlywriter (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the question marks -- all of these articles are written in prose? There are quotes, because feature stories often interview their subjects. Also worth noting the Resident Advisor [20] feature. Even discounting Guardian,Mixmag,Timeout, there are >=3 clear WP:RS here. Not to mention the other coverage I've cited. SiliconRed (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Siliconred, Another reviewer may have a different opinion, they may be listed as featured stories but they are primarily interviews with the subject, providing little to no independent coverage and containining significant quoted material from the subject. Repeating yourself that you believe otherwise will not change my opinion of the sources.Slywriter (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your help! Hopefully I am not being too much of a PITA, just doing my best here. Cheers 🍻 SiliconRed (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Review for Draft:Aiwa

Hi Slywriter, thanks for taking time to review my article that was unfortunately once again rejected. I do not understand why as the sources provided meet different criterias from the WP:MUSIC : The Guardian wrote a review totaly independant from the band, it is not an interview with the band talking about itself but an independant source. Same thing with The Observer Music Monthly that wrote a review by a very famous British journalist Charlie_Gillett, without any personal connection with the band... Do you read the articles provided as sources are some medias just prohibited? I just want to know so that I can improve my contributions in the future. Naufalle (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2022 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naufalle (talk • contribs)

Naufalle, Other than the Guardian which is good but not great, all of your sources are unusable. No idea which is Observer as none of the references labeled. Allmusic, discogs, festival pages are generally unusable for establishing notability. Need in-depth independent coverage discussing the subject. Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixing ping, NaufalleSlywriter (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Slywriter for getting back to me so speed. Does that mean that it's the references more than the external links that create the problem? The Observer Music Monthly was a magazine edited by the Guardian that stopped in 2009. It was a reference and a UK chart untill then. The first two albums were in the top 10 when published. This is why I was surprised to see it didn't count. Can I resubmit this article if references at the end of it are deleted?

Thanks again for your help !

Naufalle (talk 16:45, 11 February 2022 (CET)

Naufalle, I see the issue now. Those external links need to become sources that support content, not be buried in external linksSlywriter (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 18:27:26, 11 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Merely another passerby

• Merely another passerby (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Template:British Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, forgive me for the direct message, but it's regarding the decline of the following template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Template:British_Prime_Minister%27s_Official_Spokesperson

Reason stated is No clear reason where this would be a useful template

These Navigational boxes are used for quick navigation between Officeholders. Usually placed at the bottom of an article, they provide an overall view of the holders of an office of state and can be useful in highlighting periods when an officeholder had multiple discrete tenures or the office was vacant. (In that respect they are better than succession boxes).

This particular one is the last of a series of Navigational boxes for the British Prime Minister's office...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Downing_Street

The others are all listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_Kingdom_ministerial_office_navigational_boxes

If there is a particular reason you feel this one is less useful than any of the others would you mind elaborating so it can be addressed.

many thanks.

Merely another passerby (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Merely another passerby, looking again, think I missed something (aka the complete template and not just a title bar) while viewing on cellphone. Just re-submit and drop me a note here and ill approve. Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response ;) Slywriter. Template has now been resubmitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merely another passerby (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 12:29:13, 12 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Desertambition

• Desertambition (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Annetta Laufer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Slywriter, I was wondering how I can improve this article on a Doctor Who director. I noticed that some other Doctor Who directors did not have pages created either. Another Doctor Who director, Jamie Magnus Stone, has an article and the sources on it seem to be on par with, if not worse, than the ones I provided. If Annetta Laufer does not meet notability criteria even with all sources provided, would it be appropriate to nominate Jamie Magnus Stone for deletion?

Desertambition (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nolan Ellison draft article

Hi, Slywriter.

I've updated the references. Could you review again?

Thanks for your consideration.

DtheH01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtheH01 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

DtheH01, There are still a few lines (Olympic tryout and Phd) that are unsourced. Be best to find sources or remove them. Slywriter (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Slywriter.

Thanks for the feedback. I've added several additional references. Could you review again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtheH01 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

DtheH01, I've approved. Notability is a bit borderline and local, but figure has 51% chance of surviving AfD. Still a few uncited passages, particularly about brother that should be sourced or removed.Slywriter (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll add a reference on the brother and double-check for the additional uncited passages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtheH01 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Recently rejected article

Thank you for reviewing my article on George Ramsay Beaton. I have a couple of questions about the sources, if you have time to answer them.

You noted that the link to the American Bar Association's words about George Beaton was broken.

Although this was not the case when I first retrieved the ABA "About the Author" article featuring George Beaton, you are right--it is certainly true now. The link does not go there.

The page still exists--when I went to the American Bar Association, Shop ABA, Search ABA Products, and keyed in the title of the book in the Search bar (Remaking Law Firms), the page showing the book appeared. Then, when I scrolled down and clicked on "About the Author" the page appeared, with the quotation about George Beaton being widely regarded as an independent authority on professional services, and law firms in particular.

However, when I copied the URL for that page and tried it on Google, the search engine could not find the page.

The pages does exist, though.

What can I do to cite this important source of the ABA since the link does not yield up a page that is, nevertheless, on the ABA website?

I was also wondering if the biographical article about George Beaton by David Parnell, published in Forbes, is not considered a viable, independent, secondary source?

Any advice you can give on the above-named issues would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

JMSOtis (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

JMSOtis, Found the ABA pdf and its not useable for Wikipedia. The About Author is self-submitted promotional material. Parnell is a Forbes contributor so not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Same for Mark Cohen. After that you have a lot of sources that are not independent of the subject. Rule of WP:THREE is a general guideline to find three, independent reliable secondary sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate this detailed feedback. This is very, very helpful.

Sincerely,

JMSOtis (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 19:49:33, 16 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Godoy.website

• Godoy.website (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tania Franco Klein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The content was updated and is ready for resubmission.

Godoy.website (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Godoy.website, I have restored the AfC template, which should not be removed, and you can press submit to place the draft in the queue.Slywriter (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

PH-Tree draft feedback

Hi Slywriter, thanks for reviewing my draft article on Draft:PH-tree. I made some improvements but there are some open questions.

I understand there were several issues.

1. "This seems to be almost an ad trying to justify the subject rather than an encyclopedic summary"
2. "Lacking in-line citations"
3. "notability not clear"
4. "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article."

Regarding

1. Could you tell me where it reads like an ad? I can't quite see it..?
2. I made several changes, I hope the additional citations help. Please let me know if it should be more/less.
3. The original paper has 50+ citations (on Google Scholar). I put 11 of these into the Draft, I think neither of them is trivial. They are all from independent authors (9 different authors), they are all peer reviewed (as far as I can tell) and they all have at least a discussion or even a PH-tree performance analysis as reference for their own research. I did remove one citation of a master thesis, which I think doesn't qualify. Is there something else needed?
4. From the linked website: "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic". Could you point out where this is the case? I am happy to improve the article.

Best, TilmannZ (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, the draft reads like an instruction manual/brochure. While numerous papers are cited, there are large sections of the draft that are unsourced while discussing the structure and function of the tree. This comes across as WP:OR, possibly WP:UNDUE and gives impression of editing for promotional purposes since little current real world application is shown. At the same time, you have this line hanging at the end with numerous sources "The PH-tree is often used as a baseline for performance analysis" and yet no discussion of what those sources say. WP:REFBOMB discourages this and more importantly, seems like relevant content that should be in the article.Slywriter (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks again for the feedback. I tried to improve the article by adding more inline citations, removing the WP:REFBOMB, removing the unsourced section "Disadvantages" and attempting more neutral wording.

Please note that almost everything the in the article can be backed up by references but I decided to reference the relevant research at most once or twice per section, I think putting a reference after every sentence would be overkill (can can do it though if you want).

The only sections that have unsourced content are "Lossy Conversion" and "Hyperboxes as keys". I have them in the article because they explain some obvious question that may arise to a reader and explain how implementations solve these problems (I don't think citing implementations is recommended, or is it?). I think these explanations are useful enough that they deserve being mentioned, but they are also simple enough that experienced professionals will figure it out themselves in under an hour or so (especially the second one) or by looking at the source code. I could also integrate them into the other sections if that helps? Let me know if I should remove them.

Regarding "manual/brochure": I tried to follow the style of articles on other spatial indexes: R-tree, Bounding interval hierarchy, k-d tree, quadtree, etc. All of these are effectively "brochures" describing the features of the algorithm followed by a "manual" describing the algorithm and how it can be implemented. Maybe I misunderstand your point?

Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks, TilmannZ (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, I'll take a look shortly though all 4 examples are actually poorly cited articles as far as Wikipedia is concerned. WP:PRIMARY shows where you can use primary sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, so picking when to use them isn't really ideal. One source can support a paragraph or multiple but a reader should not be left guessing where a line is sourced from.Slywriter (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, if it helps, I found an article with FA quality rating that has a somewhat similar topic: Binary_search_algorithm

Slywriter it may also be worth talking to "Rusalkii", I think he/she was pretty much ready to accept the article when I hit "Resubmit" (assuming it would be reassigned to him) and was assigned a new reviewer, see talk here: [21] TilmannZ (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, not locked to a reviewer and can press re-submit at any time. Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, just double checking, I am just waiting for you to come back to me, right? (you wrote "I'll take a look shortly"). Also, to avoid any misunderstanding, I had Rusalkii as reviewer before I erroneously clicked "resubmit" and got another reviewer (you). I tried to make the best of my mistake, for article quality, two reviewers are probably better than one, so I try to take both your concerns into account. Since you two appear two have slightly different opinions I thought I suggest you talk to him directly. Please let me know whether you just need a bit more time or what else I can do to help.TilmannZ (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, Sections being unsourced remains a concern for me. I don't see complex math as WP:SKYISBLUE and a source should support every section.

If another reviewer is willing to approve, then press re-submit and notify them. Slywriter (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter I removed the "Lossy conversion" section (it had no sources). I did find and add some sources for the "Hyperboxes as keys" section. I think everything else is sourced now. Does this help resolving your concerns?TilmannZ (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, to better highlight my concerns, I have added citation needed tags. Also External links should not be in article, look at my edit comment, should be only one I left an edit summary.Slywriter (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks, that was very helpful. I found some more unsourced content and removed it. I rephrased some parts (especially the "Node representation" section), because I think the references would have been WP:SKYISBLUE for a trained computer scientist, which also means I don't actually need to explain it (it is all available in the linked Dynamic_array#Performance.

There are still three "citation needed" left though, they are all unsourced, but they are simply "examples" of the preceeding theoretic description:

• For Draft:PH-tree#1D_example and Draft:PH-tree#2D_example I could theoretically move them into the caption of the adjacent diagrams, but I feel this would overload the diagrams' captions with too much text.
• Regarding the trailing sentence in Draft:PH-tree#Lossless_conversion: I inserted a reference earlier in the paragraph, but the example has no source. I could simply remove it?

Thanks again, do you have any suggestions how I can best deal with these examples? TilmannZ (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, eh think we are past better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion, so I'd say submit and the various gnomes and project folk will come along and see what they think once its in mainspace. Personally, I don't find "examples" to be sky is blue and think they come too close to WP:OR but it's non-controversial material, so no reason to hold up further.Slywriter (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter Thanks, let's see what the others say :-). I am still unsure about how the process works. How do I submit it to mainspace? It is not the "Resubmit" button (I think that just calls another reviewer), or is it? Is there documentation on how this works? TilmannZ (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, yeah press it and then leave me a message so I know its back in the queue to approve. Slywriter (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter I just resubmitted it. Thanks! TilmannZ (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, Accepted. Good luck.Slywriter (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Pytest

Hi @Slywriter: thanks for taking the time to review Draft:Pytest. I've read your comment and want to know more about the specific ways of improvement. Since pytest is the most popular testing framework in Python, I do think it's worth creating a Wikipedia aritcle for. Currently there are five independent sources cited: two published books, one article from the developers at DropBox, one from Real Python, another from Python Insight. The other two are primary sources from the pytest official documentation.

There are more independent sources that cover pytest. But I want to know exatly which direction I should make the article go before I proceed. Could you be a little more specific? Thomas Meng (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, I added a few more sources including two more published books expaining pytest (now we have four published books). The article can still be improved further in my opinion, but could you check whether it's good for passing AfC now? I've resubmitted it for review, and any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your over 5000 edits for the last 3 years including software and FOSS topics! I saw already so many contributions from you that recognize your name. GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 05:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 12:42:01, 27 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by ברטוביניו

• ברטוביניו (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gal Yosef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I saw you declined my draft again but I cannot understand how can you write :No attempt at improvement. No indication of independent secondary sources" when I added sources as I was requested and said I will. Please, this has been going on too long, Gal Yosef is a world known artisit and it seems there is some agenda against approving him when he clearly deserves an article. Can you please help? ברטוביניו (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ברטוביניו (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ברטוביניו, you added a short descriptionand resubmitted. That is no attempt at improving the article. And cut the nonsense of some agenda, continuing down that path will lead to you being reported and possibly restricted from editing. Spend your energy to fix the article in accordance with Wikipedia policies or accept that your client is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines.Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alex_Crockford_(Coach)

Hi Slywriter! Thanks so much for your feedback on my draft. I've made some edits, does this read better now please and less like an advertisement?

Regarding the need for significant coverage, I've added some additional references. There are MANY more available, but from less reliable sources (such as the Daily Mail etc). Should I still include these where they are not the source of the facts included in the article, but are being referred to in and of themselves? (e.g "he has appeared in the Daily Mail").

Any other feedback to help make it ready to publish would be greatly appreciated, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRSlade (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

ChrisRSlade, Daily Mail is never an acceptable source on Wikipedia. More fundamentally, you have large sections unsourced. As this is a WP:BLP, every statement should be sourced. And MANY sources is a subjective opinion as if they are low-quality sources, press releases, or otherwise connected to the subject they will not contribute to notability.Slywriter (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Jews in Hull

Thank you for your application and diligence. I'm sure you've perused the Talk page and saw that I tried to advise of WP BLOAT and many other aspects includng AGF nearly a year ago; I was viciously attacked - four attacks, actually, over the course of two days, at two third-party User Talk pages, so I had to withdraw, as newbie prevails over all. Sanctioned by an admin's throwaway remark, the bloating has continued for a year.

In this change, you used a keyword "realtor"; I recognised your allusion (realtor is not used in England), as I added the ref to cite that it was a former synagogue, turned into multi-occupancy commercial office space. It was deleted by the article author/owner, I re-added it and has endured until now; so this is just to clarify that it was not he who added it. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Atomic Habits

Thanks for reviewing this draft. There is a bug which is preventing the url from showing up in the copyvio decline tag. Are you able, please, to go back and re-enter it? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Found it! Cleaned it down, and requested CV-revdel Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

TimTrent, Should I leave a comment or talk page message as well when dealing with copyvio drafts?Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a set of ideal things to do. Niot everyone does all of them, and it is not properly stated anywhere that I have found. I'm pinging Primefac because they drew a lot of attention to it on WT:AFC right near the foot of the page:

• Identify the source of the copyvio.
• Decline citing the copyvio as the reason. Consider whether CSD is required. If so this is the end of the process (it may be a good aide memoire while the bug (see below in blue) is still affecting the script)to add the copyright url to an AFC comment, good call)
• Physically remove the copyvio by either:

• rewriting it (we can do this)
• redacting it. I often make it very obvious with a statement in each location that I have done so

• Ask for a cv-revdel. There is a gizmo I have in my More tab that makes this easy, but I forget where I got it from
• in your Decline you will see "cv". Once you are sure it has been cleaned, alter this to "cv-cleaned"

All the foregoing is for normal times. We have a bug inthe AFCH script that fails to write the parameter |details= or |details2= (depends on which decline reason comes first). Please go the extra mile and add the url (absent from the decline template) eg "|details2=foo-bar.com"

There, I think I got it all. I learned a lot of this while hunting down those that had exasperated Primefac, and I trust them to correct me (Please amend that stuff above, Primefac, formal permission given). If I have it right please feel free to edit and promulgate. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The gizmo is User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel, which makes it easier to add a {{revdel}} request. Otherwise looks good. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Decision Education Foundation

Hello Slywriter,

Thank you for your help sorting out this article. Since you last provided feedback, I've added several citations from books (Hat tip to you for your suggestion to search Google books, Google News and Google Scholar!). Those suggestions also led me to find some other citations, remove duplicates and refine the text of the article by deleting some irrelevant content.

Thanks again for investing your efforts to make this a better article. Would you please be so kind as to take a look at the revised version? I believe it's ready for publication. Any further help you can offer will be more than welcome.

Tonypray (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Vladimir Shilstev

Hi, Slywriter! I have submitted wiki article on Prof. Vladimir Shiltsev Submission declined on 10 March 2022 by Slywriter (talk). Requests are: a) Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. b) Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added Editorial Comment was: Basically a resume. Slywriter (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I have read and got valuable insights from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Prof.Shiltsev obviously satisfies Criterion 1 "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." - with highly cited works -eg in Reviews of Modern Physics, “pioneered or developed a significant new concept”, and several national and intl awards; Criterion 2 “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.” – with 5 such awards; Criterion 3 “The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). “ – he’s Fellow of at least three IEEE, AAAS and APS; Criterion 5 “The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)” – he’s a Distinguished Scientist at Fermilab. So, I decided to modify the article, reduce its length, concentrate on the key notability elements as advised by Wikipedia, and provide more verifiable, independent sources. I have also taken as examples two excellent Wiki articles on other famous accelerator physicists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekazi_Mtingwa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sands Please, consider and advise on my resubmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vovatol (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Palatine Lodge No. 97

Thanks for you review Slywriter and comments. Regarding my submission not being adequately supported by reliable sources. The source proving the existence of Palatine Lodge No 97 and its history, i.e., warrant dates, the Lodge Numbers, the places the Lodge met is supported by (ref 3) Lane’s Masonic Records, held at the Museum of Freemasonry and Published by The Digital Humanities Institute, University of Sheffield, England. The Museum of Freemasonry (ref wiki) is fully accredited by the UK Arts Council. Note, I’ve updated the Lane’s link to add the Publisher to clarify the credibility of this source. Palatine Lodge No 97 is very fortunate, it being one of very few Masonic Lodges in the world to have records dating back to 1757, in the form of written minutes and written history books etc. To make this rich history more accessible and to aid future researchers we digitised many pages from our old history books, compiled them, and published them on our official website. These ancient documents can be viewed, in person, but the next best is to have electronic access and the reason for me referencing them in my article. With regards to Notable members, given the nature of the organisation at that time, the only sources of proof that a person was a member of a Lodge, or indeed a Freemason, is by referencing old Lodge membership registers and documents like ours. Alternatively, Lodge membership records dating back to 1751 are held at the United Grand Lodge of England (Freemasons Hall) and can be accessed via Ancestry.co.uk. As this is a subscription service, I didn’t think it was advisable to use as a reference. Am I correct? I’m of the opinion that providing references to our notable ancient members will be invaluable to future researchers and should feature in my article. For example, there are few sources where a researcher could find out that John George Lambton (1792-1840), 1st Earl of Durham, was a Freemason and member of Palatine Lodge No 97, Sunderland. So, to conclude, I believe that Palatine Lodge No 97, with its long and rich history, should be published in Wikipedia. Could you please review my comments and provide further guidance, where necessary. Thanks again for your assistance. Stev201961 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Stev201961 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Stev201961, existence is not notability. And all of your sources are connected to the Masons. Wikipedia requires independent, secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:COI and make the proper declarations. Continuing to edit the subject without doing so is a violation of Wikipedia policies.Slywriter (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note my response, thanks Stev201961 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response but obviously I am disappointed.

Firstly, there is no COI. I am purely stating facts which are supported by historical evidence.

As a new author, to ensure I followed the guidelines and format, I based my article on a similar wiki article published for Phoenix Lodge. Pheonix, like Palatine, is also a very old Lodge in Sunderland, England.

The Pheonix article has fewer, but similar Masonic references. But, unlike my article, it does not reference an independent source, i.e., the Lane’s records, held in the Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield, England.

Note, I’ve also added a reference to an article published in the Sunderland Echo and Shipping Journal, titled A City Shaped By Masons, 6 May 2009, as a further independent source.

So, as the main body of my article follows the same logic as the Pheonix article, with enhanced referencing, it should be published.

If the issue is the section titled Notable Members, then if this is preventing publication then reluctantly, I’ll remove it.

However, the references and links I’ve used in the Notable Members section are very similar in nature (i.e. Masonic) to those used throughout the wiki published article titled ‘List of Freemasons’.

So, if judged on an equal basis then this section should also be published. But, if necessary, I will remove it.

I whole heartedly support the requirement to establish notability and believe, for the main body of the article, that I have met the independent source requirements with my references to the University of Sheffield’s records, the Beamish Hall Museum article (ref the section titled THE BEAMISH HALL, paragraph 3, starting line 7) and the additional Sunderland Echo article.

Also, the Masonic references I’ve used are no different to references used on other wiki pages.

So, I hope you’ll agree that if the same logic, used elsewhere in Wikipedia, is applied then I meet the requirements for publication.

Thanks again, Stev201961 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Stev201961,You stated our history. So to claim you have no conflict is disingenuous. Until you clarify your relationship with the Lodge, there will be no further discussion between us. You are welcome to visit WP:AFCHD for an alternative opinionSlywriter (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument on wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, since we last talked, I’ve worked extensively to add more independent references, majority are articles written in various Newspapers held in the British Newspaper Archive at the British Museum. My article must have the Wiki record for the most references 😊.

Regarding COI, clearly, I’m a Freemason, a member of Palatine Lodge and proud to be part of a worldwide organisation that makes a huge contribution to society and charity, often without publicity.

If I weren’t a freemason and member of Palatine Lodge, then I wouldn’t have the knowledge to write about its long history.

I strongly suspect most of the wiki articles relating to Freemasonry are also written by Freemasons. Likewise, most of the articles written about golf will have been written by golfers! Nothing wrong with that!

I quote, “Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopaedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on ALL branches of knowledge”. And I’d hope without censorship or prejudice.

To be clear, I am not promoting Freemasonry. My only motive is to add to the compendium of knowledge available to current and future generations.

Given the extensive referencing in my article are you happy for me to resubmit it?

Thanks and regards Stev201961 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You can re-submit but I'd give the odds at 90% that it is promptly declined by a reviewer. Your sourcing is 95% primary sources from the lodge and frankly, Wikipedia doesn't care what a subject has to say about themselves or those connected to it. If the wider world doesn't care to write about it then it is not notable under wikipedia guidelines. Adding a few newspaper articles does not change the fact that the article is over-reliant on primary connected sources and what little content you are getting from secondary sources is marginal at best.

As to your affliation, compliance with WP:COI is not optional and you need to make a declaration on your user page about the article.

And declining to publish a written history of a lodge, culled from its own records, written by one of its members is not censorship, it's the core of wikipedia policy. And I suggest not using that line again, it won't go over well.Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response.

Regarding your comment,

“Your sourcing is 95% primary sources from the lodge”.

This is not accurate. Primary sources are now backed up by Independent secondary sources. Independent sources include those from the Digital Humanities Institute, held at the University of Sheffield, several historical articles from the British Newspaper archive held at the British Museum and articles from other non-related Masonic websites. So, to be more accurate my sources are 50% primary and 50% secondary independent sources.

Also, regarding your comment.

“If the wider world doesn't care to write about it then it is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines”

This can’t be true. Surely what’s important is to capture what the world doesn’t know about and educate. Today’s Wiki featured Article is Uroš Drenović. Does the wider world care to write about Uroš Drenović? No, but that doesn’t mean an article about him shouldn’t be written and feature in Wikipedia.

Likewise, the wider world may not care about Palatine Lodge No 97, but it has been an important part of the Northeast of England’s social history and should therefor feature in Wikipedia.

Thanks, and regards, Stev201961 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Stev201961, first a reminder that compliance with WP:COI is not optional. Second, yes it can be true. As shown by the numerous independent sources used in Drenovic article. Wikipedia operates under verifiability with more stringent requirements for organizations. We are not here to be a repository of statements, based on documents produced by your organization. If an independent party researches the lodge, then we would cover what the independent party found noteworthy. As it stands, the draft is not an article that meets Wikipedia's standards and your continued attempts to insist otherwise are futile. You are welcome to re-submit and hope another reviewer sees differently, though I will document my concerns on the draft or you can seek additional guidance at WP:AFCHD or the teahouse Slywriter (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Syywriter, I've included a potential COI to the talk page and re-submitted. Regards. Stev201961 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywrite, I’m disappointed that you have added the comment at the head of my published article saying that “This article relies too much on references to primary sources”.

This is not true. My recent reviewer suggested that I strip out all the primary and focus on secondary sources which I have duly done and to the reviewer’s satisfaction.

As I’ve stated before, the secondary sources I’m using are from

The University of Sheffield, well respected and an independent institution.

The British Newspaper archive held at the British Museum. The British Museum is up there as one of the most respected institutions in the world, and most definitely independent.

The Newspaper articles I’ve used as references are from a range of publications, published in different cities throughout the UK (therefor different authors) and published over a span of, getting on for, one hundred years.

So, unless you can give me specific examples of the references you consider to be primary and why, then I’d ask that you remove this banner. Thanks, and Regards Stev201961 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft: BADVOID

Hi, thank you for fixing up and helping with the Draft:BADVOID article.

I appreciate the help.

Please let me know if you think there is anything else that needs fixing.

GenesisGSE (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russian cruiser Moskva, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, excuse me? So speculation from political leaders is now valid content? cool. And a reason was given.Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a nice loaded question. You didn't give a valid reason, and I explained other difficulties on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Paul Henteleff

Regarding your comment that the author is "using palliative care sources to buff up the article without clear connection to subject," could you identify which listed sources do not have a clear connection to the subject? Is there a way to reference articles that makes the connection clearer? E.g. adding page numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E4E5:F00:852:2B9C:3839:5720 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Simple. Which sources actually discuss the subject of the article? Many of the sources are on the topic of palliative care and make no mention of the subject.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, every source mentions Paul Henteleff and many of them are mainly about him. Can you point to a specific source that does not mention his work?2001:8003:E4E5:F00:E8E3:E95C:8011:1E2B (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Article on Lemuria

I saw that you removed some of the content that had been added to the article on Lemuria by a student in a course I am teaching called "Archaeological Myths and Realities." I think the student was not appropriately clear in discussing the mythology of Lemuria versus the scientific reality of Lemuria, presenting some material in a way that made it appear to be fact when it was not. I put some comments on the talk page for the article and would like to explore the possibility of editing the article in such a way that it include some content on the esoteric mythology of Lemuria. This would be appropriate given the sidebar for Theosophy, which makes it clear that this article has ties to occult beliefs. Let me know what you think. Hoopes (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hoopes, I think the material could work covering its mythology. The concept seems due. On the edit, it was written a little too real and they had been previously reverted by another editor and re-added the material without comment. The second edit, paleo place, seems to be definiton of paleo place with unclear connection to Lemuria, though I suspect the source does explain Lemuria in that context with more information than was provided. Though same issue of presenting the material as fact in wikivoice.Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, I completely agree. The idea of a "paleo place" is problematic for me simply because that's not a well-known concept. Furthermore, Lemuria is an imaginary (or at best hypothetical) place, not a real one that once existed. What makes things complicated is that there is a separate article for Lemuria in popular culture that I think should be merged with the Lemuria article. The content that was added, removed, and re-added without comment is material that may be better suited--with rewrites--for that other article. There needs to be a clear distinction between Lemuria as a 19th-century scientific hypothesis (albeit disproved) and as an imaginary place in Theosophical, New Age, comic book, and other contexts. Hoopes (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

V.Smile article

I noticed that you've removed the games list among other things off of the V.Smile article on this site. This edit has caused the article to be less useful as you have also removed other info. If you don't remember, here's the edit of yours here. V.Smile Lorenzsandi (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, completely unreferenced. As is most of the article, which comes across as a promotional piece not an encyclopedia article.Slywriter (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)